As Vice President Kamala Harris accepted the Democratic nomination for president at the 2024 Democratic National Convention in Chicago on August 22, she offered a stark critique of her Republican opponent, Donald Trump. While highlighting the grave consequences of a second Trump term, Harris labeled the former president as “an unserious man” but warned of the serious dangers his return to the White House would pose.
This characterization of Trump as both unserious and dangerous has resonated across the political spectrum, including among some of his conservative critics. Bill Kristol, a prominent "Never Trump" conservative and supporter of Harris, delved into this duality in an August 26 column for The Bulwark, where he echoed Harris’s sentiments.
Kristol argues that Trump’s persona—often dismissed as mere buffoonery or showmanship—serves as a façade that obscures the genuine threat his leadership poses. According to Kristol, it is precisely Trump’s unseriousness that allows many to underestimate the dangers of his political influence. He suggests that this perception of Trump as a mere entertainer can make it difficult for the public to fully grasp the gravity of what a second Trump presidency could mean for the country.
Harris’s decision to briefly address Trump’s unseriousness, Kristol notes, was a strategic move. By acknowledging Trump’s clownish behavior, Harris aimed to pivot the conversation towards the more significant issue: the potential consequences of his policies and the movement he leads. Kristol agrees with this approach, emphasizing that Trump’s antics should not distract from the real danger posed by the MAGA movement—a political force that extends beyond Trump himself.
In his analysis, Kristol references veteran Democratic strategist James Carville, who has advised Democrats to focus their campaign efforts on attacking the broader MAGA movement rather than Trump individually. Carville’s reasoning is that while Trump has a loyal base, the extremist elements of Trumpism are less palatable to the general electorate. Kristol concurs, suggesting that the public is more wary of the radical agenda espoused by Trump’s followers than of Trump as a person.
Kristol points to recent polling and public reactions to initiatives like Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, which outlines a far-right agenda for a potential Trump administration. The response to such proposals, he argues, indicates that the American public is increasingly alarmed by the prospect of Trumpism, even if they are not as personally repelled by Trump himself.
However, Kristol cautions that while Harris can highlight these dangers, much of the responsibility for opposing Trumpism will fall to others—politicians, activists, and voters alike. He contends that while Harris must focus on presenting herself as a capable leader, the broader anti-Trump coalition must work diligently to expose and combat the extremist ideologies that underpin the MAGA movement.
In the coming months, as the 2024 election campaign intensifies, Kristol’s warning serves as a reminder that Trump’s antics, however entertaining or absurd they may seem, should not distract from the serious threats posed by the movement he leads.